Lawyers' Reports Annotated Volume 21

Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1893 edition. Excerpt: ...elect it is decided in Merchant's Bank of New York v. Woodrutlf, 6 Hill, 174. aflirming 25 Wend. 678, that local usage to deny days ot grace on a bill oi' exchange is not valid. Where the right to days of grace has been established by statute, it is still more plain that the right cannot be defeated by local usage. Mechanics Bank at Baltimore v. Merchants Bank at Boston, 6 Met. 18. In the above case it was held that the usage to send a previous notice. stating when the note would be due, as a substitute for demand upon maturity, does not accelerate or alter the day oi' payment. The usage ct banks to consider a note payable without grace, when a memorandum of the date thereon states merely the contract date of maturity. is not valid, where days oi' gmoe are given by statute. Perkins v. Franklin Bank, 21 Pick. 4&3. While general usage has established three days as the period of grace, a local usage by which the demand or notice of dishonor is given on the day following the third day of grace. has been held valid. Grand Bank v. Blanchard, 23 Pick. 305; Benner v. Bank of Columbia. 22 U. B. 9 Wheat. 581, 6 L. ed. 166; Mills v. Bank ot United States. 24 U. S. 11 Wheat. 431, 6 L. ed. 512; Bank of Washington v. Triplett: 5 U. S. 1 Pet. 25, 7 L. ed. 37: Bank of Columbia v. Fitzhugh, l Harr. 8: G. 239: Raborg v. Bank of Oolumbia. Id. 231; Bank of Columbia v. Magruder, 6 Harr. Gt J'. 172. 14 Am. Dec. W1: Jackson v. Union Bank, Id. 146: Jackson v. Henderson, 8 Leigh, 196. But in the case last named. it was held that such a custom must be pleaded and proof thereof would not support an averment of presentment when the bill became due and payable. As to collections. The custom of all the banks or a place as to the method of...show more